As a scientist, Iím ethically
bound to refrain from making pronouncements about my research until Iíve
collected enough data, tested my hypotheses, had my work reviewed by other
scientists, and verified in their laboratories.†
EPA has repeatedly given the media reassuring statements without enough data
or peer review.

Clearly, in the case of the WorldTradeCenter, there was a need for a speedy answer to the
question:† Is the Air safe to breathe?†† What is the correct answer, if there is
potential for harm, but not enough data?††
We Donít Know, but in the meantime, we are
collecting data and we recommend precautions to minimize exposure.

How does one resolve the need
for an answer when you donít have enough data, and when the consequences of
doing nothing or making a wrong answer are so great that peoplesí lives and
health are possibly at serious risk?†

As medical doctors must uphold
the oath:† ďFirst, Do No HarmĒ, environmental
and health scientists should be ethically bound to uphold the Precautionary
Principle: ďWhen in doubt and there is potential for harm, err on the side of
caution.Ē†

When there is an
environmental disaster, and there is potential for illness, death or damage to
the environment, all the science agencies (USEPA, NYSDEC, NYSDOH, NYCDEP,
NYCDOH) who are responsible for protecting public health and the environment,
should have upheld the Precautionary Principle, choosing protective measures
until thorough investigations Proved that the risk to public health was less
than EPAís benchmark, one in one million cancers.† Emergency response agencies should also
uphold this principle.

The Precautionary Principle
is not only the best course of action from an ethical point-of-view, but it is
also more effective and cheaper to Prevent harm than to try to Undo damage to
peoplesí health and their environment.† Remediation
of a contaminated environment, and cure of those suffering environmental
illnesses, is not always possible. †Studies
continue to show that the benefits to public health from regulating industrial
emissions far outweigh costs of controls.

These health and
environmental agencies should Not have seen it as their business to reassure to
public when they had not collected data on many of the air pollutants, had not
collected data indoors, and had not collected data in Brooklyn or Chinatown..† Pronouncing
environmental safety without definitive supporting data, as everyone downtown
could smell the toxic fumes and while thousands of indoor environments were
contaminated with dust containing dozens of toxic and carcinogenic pollutants,
exposing a large population to serious respiratory diseases and possibly
cancer, is tantamount to espousing Junk Science.† This is a serious policy flaw in our public
health and environmental agencies, and Must change.

The agencies should have IMMEDIATELY
mobilized resources from around the country to thoroughly assess concentration,
extent, and health impacts of the toxic air and dust.† Scientists and laboratories would have gladly
responded to the call.† Instead, EPA
Region II rejected offers of trained personnel and air sampling equipment!

Once the full extent of the
environmental disaster was characterized, the agencies should have publicized the
nature of the dangers, argued for funds to evacuate contaminated areas and to
thoroughly remediate and test every part of every building as quickly as
possible.

That the
agencies left it to residents and janitors to clean toxic waste from indoor
environments, this needlessly exposed thousands of people to the toxic dust.† The policy of
these agencies not taking responsibility for protecting the health and
environment in times of environmental disaster Must
change.

Even at this late date, the
Precautionary Principle can still be used to protect the health of those living
and working in contaminated areas.† Toxic
dust is still present in indoor environments and ventilation systems,
potentially exposing people for decades.†
Children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems are
particularly at risk.† The health and
environmental agencies still have the opportunity to reduce health impacts from
the WTC disaster.† Itís Time for them to
do their job.